"Test everything; retain what is good.” (1 Thes 5:21) A laywoman expresses concerns about issues in the Roman Catholic Church to foster positive dialogue by posing and exploring questions.
Please remember that Canon Law says it is not only a right but a duty to question the church. Also, Canon Law provides an over-riding power to the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). By this, Canon Law says that if the sensus fidelium (collective of the faithful) reject a law, it is not valid.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: In search of a consistent ethic

Many thanks to guest contributor, Ray Temmerman, for his blog article below.

Our Catholic leadership has taken, and continues to take, a
strong position on life issues, especially where sexual ethics and the first nine
months of human life are concerned.They
have made it clear that any deviation from a sexual norm determined long ago is
considered an intrinsic moral evil.And
any activity, or indeed any method of acting, which is contrary to the natural
order of things is not considered morally acceptable.They are to be applauded for their clarity of
vision, and their determination to hold life sacred, allegedly from conception
to natural death.

But I find myself wondering, and questioning.

If the natural order of things is so important, should not
nature as understood today be considered, and the findings of present-day
science considered when determining that natural order?If, for example, we now know that there
exists in nature a spectrum of sexuality, can heterosexuality still be deemed
to be the only "natural" order?Or should our understanding of what constitutes the natural order be
updated to reflect the natural order that we observe happening
"naturally" around us today?

If the natural order of things is so important, why is not
the entire spectrum of "disorder" not included in our hierarchical
condemnations?For example, if "the
pill" is such a moral evil, why are all those who knowingly involve
themselves in the design, development, manufacture, marketing and distribution
of "the pill" not equally condemned?Why are the owners and operators of PMU (Pregnant Mare Urine) farms,
whose sole purpose and intentionality is to produce the raw materials used in
the manufacture of "the pill", not condemned for their direct
participation in this moral evil?Why is
it that condemnation is directed only at those who actually use "the
pill", i.e. women?Where is the
consistent ethic?

Arguments have been made that by using "the pill",
women are going against nature by forcing the body to do what it is not meant
to do, and thereby burning out the body for the natural order of conception,
pregnancy and childbirth.

If that argument is sound, then why do I not hear equal
condemnation of the use of fertilizers in food production?Why is there no condemnation of introducing
into our food chain, and hence into our bodies, at the rate of one pound per person per day, a whole
range of chemical and other fertilizers designed specifically to make nature do
more than it is naturally meant to?

Why do we not hear condemnation of the use of chemical
pesticides, designed to destroy or at least frustrate specific components of
nature, and introduced through plants into our food chain, there to wreak havoc
in our bodies?Where is the consistent
ethic?

Natural Family Planning (NFP) has been determined to be an
acceptable method of planning family sizes and spacing of children, based on
the idea that through its use, a couple "collaborates" with
nature.But Humane Vitae, while saying
that, also says that each and every sexual act must be open to procreation.Is this not about method rather than
intentionality?And is intentionality
not of greater importance in moral decision-making than is the method of
implementing the decision?How is the
intentionality in using NFP, except for the express purpose of having more
children, any different from the intentionality of using Artificial Birth
Control (ABC)?Are not both methods
expressive of a common intent not to be open to procreation in this sexual act
at this point in time, and hence in contravention of the teaching of Humanae
Vitae?Why is there condemnation of the
method, but complete silence on the intentionality?Where is the consistency of ethic?

If life is sacred throughout its entire range, why is there
so little focus on the environment, that envelope in which we live, on which
our intentions and actions so severely impact, and whose consequential changes
will so severely impact those not yet born?

We hear condemnation of all actions which jeopardize or
terminate millions of lives in their first nine months.Why do we not hear equal condemnations of
actions which jeopardize, and may terminate, the lives of billions in their
remaining nine decades?Why do we not
hear sound condemnation of the greed and rapacity which we now consider
"natural" but which contribute untold tonnes of carbon to our
atmosphere, thereby raising temperatures and changing the whole natural order
of things such that food crops cannot grow, precious water becomes scarce, and
people are forced to migrate or die – and perhaps to die even as they
migrate?Why, having failed to speak out
against practices which force migration, we then refuse to welcome to our
shores those who suffer the consequences of our greed?Where is the consistent ethic of life?

When will our hierarchical leaders listen to the voices of
the Spirit of God in the people, including the scientists and naturalists in
our midst, and learn from them of the presently understood realities of the
natural order?When will our
hierarchical leaders begin to speak out in support of life at all stages, not
just on the first nine months but on the full ninety years?When will their voice begin calling for a
consistent ethic across the entirety of life?

Unless and until that happens, their voice will be heard,
then dismissed as being out of touch with the natural order of things.The consequences, for people today and for
generations yet unborn, are too great to be set aside.

1 comment:

Welcome, Ray. This is a great article. I think the hierarchy concentrates on the abstract and not the present. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson has called for complete reconsideration of sexual ethics, and he is right, but his reward is to get blackballed by his fellow bishops.

About Me

I am a single mother of three who from the eyes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy is in full communion with the Church. But I question if any woman is capable of being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church due to clericalism, sexism, and the marginalization, and emotional abuse of women.
I hold a master degree in theology from Loyola (Master of Pastoral Studies, M.P.S.). I am not employed by the Catholic Church but rather am an executive consultant.
Some ask if I want to be a priest. We are baptized priest, prophet and king. I feel I am more called to exercise my prophetic voice than a priestly one.
(Artwork supplied courtesy of one of my daughters.)